Whereas I don't participate in any social media circles (other than this one) what I do love about the internet is all the information to be found. The news is generally depressing but I do my share of 'witnessing' since I believe it's the responsible thing to do - with the caveat that it's necessary to exercise some judgement and discernment. In other words, I read but don't believe everything that passes by my sight.
Then there are all the other odds and ends - the latest news about discoveries, scientific, archeological, historical and too, some hopeful and some intriguing. I will read anything that catches my attention.
Many of the blogs I enjoyed during their heyday are gone now and while I regret having lost access to the ones that were deleted I'm happy some are still here to be read. One such was called 'The Big Study', a blog that proved to be a treasury of carefully collected anomalies and ideas hosted from 2009 to 2015 by 'The Professor'. If there was ever any solid information about his personal history I missed the post but it appears he is/was a teacher of physics. The following is an introductory one posted in August of 2009.
The Professor:
The old people have always known that there was more to reality than the stone which hits you in the face. There was the Self. There was the Soul of the friend, the lover, the child, the Other. There was GOD. There were the Spirits, the nature beings, even the things that "go bump in the night".
The foundation of this blog is that they were usually smarter than we are. They were generally right. All these were real. All these ARE real. We are letting them slip from our consciousness, and we are losing touch with half the world. You will not want to read this blog if you cannot stretch your universe to include the possibility that such things can be true. The Soul who writes here believes in Soul, believes in a Great Maker, believes in a many colored array of wonders, both material and spiritual. This soul believes that there are (often) factual events within which this "lost" part of our reality strongly shows itself.
There are "encounters", there are "anomalies", there are inspirations and guidances. They are all there, but rarely to the mind closed to them. The mind of a scientist can be a very productive thing. It usually knows a lot. It can analyze certain things amazingly--I once did a little of that myself. But the mind of a scientist (if that's all it is) has come to live in a very small world. It is a paradox. The culture's (alleged) truth-seekers are occupying boxes so small that the big study of what is has ended up outside their walls. And they ARE walls. They are walls that so forbid the exploration of "dangerous" areas (even of conversation let alone active seeking) that most of these powerful IQs are ashamed to speak of them.
This writer is an old retired member of that mistaken and wandering tribe. It's too late to care what the dogmatic tribal elders think. It's time to call out for the things that are, but which they say cannot be. And just breathe the free air. What will these topics be? GOD, Spirit, Free Will, Afterlife, of course. Angels, devils, spirits too. Nature entities, what the old folks called "the good people" and "the middle angels"--well lets at least see. Encounters with the strange, the weird, the "impossible". Lets forget the sayers of "can't", relax, and let be.
Posted by The Professor at 11:04 AM No comments:
Labels: Spirituality; Anomalies; GOD
Here is another favorite of his posted topics.
♡
The picture at the top is from this past weekend. Yes, it's been very cold and while the ground is still free from snow (likely not for long) everything is hard and colorless. Meanwhile, I continue to read.. and consider the possibilities.
Hi Susan,
ReplyDeleteAh yes, but consciousness itself I think is a very slippery state. One might say we have an ordinary side and that which we call spiritual. But that may not be the best way or word to use is attempting to describe the mysterious conscious world we inhabit. Then again one can believe spirituality is innate and has nothing to do with our beliefs. That sort of view that spirituality already exists, independent to any beliefs systems, posits you don’t have to believe in a set of beliefs to perform random acts of kindness. Of course that is not to say those beliefs can’t have highly beneficial outcome and enhanced societal outcomes. But such encounters might realise what is already present to arise effortlessly once we are able to be break free from the entanglements which prevent us from realising our essential self. All mysteries in themselves.
Best wishes
DeleteWe all need to get out of The Enclosure. We all need to occasionally "turn away". We need to listen to the Universe sing ... we need our own soul to sing with it.
The Song is always there.
~ The Professor from a 2012 post called Everyday Spirituality; Matters of the Heart.
Consciousness is only tricky when we tell ourselves that 'I and it' is the only way to relate to the world, Lindsay. I enjoyed his blog because of his willingness to balance far out on a limb to report what he saw.
Best wishes
Hmmm. Exactly. My son teaches high school and community college chemistry and biology. Many of my friends are or were high school science teachers. My best subjects in high school and college were math and science. There are few if any truly Renaissance men today. It's barely possible due to all those boxes and walls. Still there are lots of very smart people but genius is different and rare. I worked as a supervisor in a residential/reform school for boys as a supervisor. The decided on teaching as a lifelong career. I chose to become and history and social studies teacher because it was noted for being boring and a refuge for jocks. Jock being teachers who put coaching first and teaching second. I wanted to change all that and did in small school district where I was able to escape bureaucratic paralysis and use true stories and dreams and myths to broad young minds and nourish their natural curiosity. Eventually I found an teaching partner (English) and we built 2 hour humanity combined classes emphasizing reading good biography and historical fiction, writing art music science etc. Then about age 50 helped create our districts first middle school and left senior high to teach American Studies and World Studies with my same teaching partner for 7th and 8th graders. Never a jock I decided finally to take up coaching basketball which I continued into retirement. OOps I dislike stream of consciousness writing though I may just have been...
ReplyDeleteContinuing on however, I'm reminded of Mr. Cheney would interspersed his lie with the phrase "the fact of the matter" is. Several of my science teacher friends often us the phrase "research shows" and mix up their opinions with facts or even non peer reviewed research. When history and the social science, and the greater mysteries of the human mind and experience are denigrated I remind them that that can look in the back of their text books for the answers but faith, myth and spirituality poses another realm beyond. Those realms deserve our attention as they contain both prospects of good and evil....
It was wonderful to read your personal experiences with teaching and the good changes you made in the educational environment, Ray. You're right that there are few (if any) Renaissance scholars around today because there are far too many boxed-in specialties to examine. I think too much focus these days is made on specialization and its concurrent goal of, not just financial reward, but the yearning for fame and prestige. I worked alongside medical/scientific specialists long enough to know one didn't joke about Nobel prizes.
DeleteAnyway, the Professor mentioned in one post that he'd spent some time conversing with David Bohm (!) and came up with the following remarks. I think you'll likely be impressed with his wisdom.
It reminded me then, also, of a moment when I was able to spend a [too short] time with David Bohm, the famous theoretical physicist. He, at the same time as Pribram was suggesting a holographic model of consciousness, was suggesting his version of a holographic model of the universe [to deal with quantum mechanical paradoxes]. I was, of course, not competent to converse on much of this [meaningfully] with him, but I asked him if he thought it was possible that whatever the "driver" was for the measurable actions of "light" in our three-space wasn't acting out of our three-space at all, but rather did what it did from another dimensional platform, and instead "conditioned" areas of our three-space so that we only detected light when we stuck some detection mechanism in there, and that there would be no "light" anywhere except where the "interfering material" had been inserted. He surprised me [because I was 99% sure that I was speaking nonsense] by saying: yes, you can envision it that way. That has continued to encourage me to view the universe as this sort of holographic [but much more "forceful"] projection from the other dimensions. And, with Pribram, that the Mind, the "Observer" within us, [for me, my Soul] operates similarly from the vantage point of its own sort of dimension/platform, equally part of the total reality. It is this privileged position in the scheme of things, which allows us "Quantum Observership", free will, altered states of consciousness, and occasional paranormal awarenesses. It is in fact the model of reality that allows me to imagine enough "size" in reality to allow all of "the biggest study".
My dear Susan
ReplyDeleteI think the exclamation point (!) after Bohm's name is if anything understated. We get few of his ilk in a century, if that.
I've thought of this in both general and specific terms, often in recent years sitting on the bank of the Big Hole river, sifting the sand and rocks idly, fly rod sitting idle. I've wondered if it makes a difference, that soon I'll be one of these little particles, or one of the many carbon molecules I breath in and out with the other gasses.
I think it matters, but it only matters to a certain extent. When one is on the upward swing of their life, when they are making discoveries, helping science, spending hours on a transplant it makes a certain difference; to keep you centered, and to help you know you are part of a much, much larger process. The universe, in you, around and way out there are part of what you are doing, and you are part and helpful to that process.
Then, at some point, you understand you are a little molecule, one of those particles of rock and dust that sift through your fingers, and flow by in the water at your feet.
Your friend,
Mike
"Self is not the source of the thought, rather thought is the source of the self."
Delete- Krishnamurti
“The notion of a separate organism is clearly an abstraction, as is also its boundary. Underlying all this is unbroken wholeness even though our civilization has developed in such a way as to strongly emphasize the separation into parts.”
- David Bohm
Dear Mike,
David Bohm was indeed a rare human being, another was Jiddu Krishnamurti, and the two of them spent a fair amount of time with one another in probing conversation. Happily for us a couple of those talks were filmed and are available on youtube.
While I understand what you mean about feeling but a very small part of something much much larger what I think we tend to mistake, and this is only natural for us to be able to survive as physical entities, is that we end at the limits of our skin. I think what you're describing when you mention aspects of being 'on the upward swing of life' is very true, largely because when we are deeply involved in processes that take us out of ourselves we are at one with everything and part of the universal creative process.
I'm reading your conclusion that ultimately we're just tiny molecules as saying our lives are ultimately insignificant and meaningless. Perhaps I'm wrong and I've misinterpreted your words. If not, though, it's not one with which I concur since it leaves out harmony, beauty, and the great mystery of love. Those moments when we feel connected to the natural environment, the sunset, the flight of a bird, or the glint in a squirrel's eye as it notices your presence are just a few of the things that make me believe in a much larger reality than the one that tells me I'm small, weak and of no consequence in this amazing cosmos. At the same time, I have nothing any scientist or engineer would regard as proof.
You can, and undoubtedly will, continue to hold the beliefs that have matured during your life. I've had my own experiences, ones that can't be explained, that I interpret as big hints that all is not known by any of us - nor should it be since it would stop being fun to contemplate. I'm sure your thoughts range far in time and space when you have the leisure to sit on the banks of the Big Hole River on a sunny day. May you enjoy many more.
With very good wishes,
Susan
Hi Susan
ReplyDeleteGood points made by Mike whilst sitting on the bank of the Big Hole River. But the big question Susan is to ask him if ever catches any big fish ? On the question of feeling part of a much larger process I like the idea of a "collective consciousness".
Hence I certainly can relate to the quote but not sure what you mean concerning “Consciousness is only tricky when we tell ourselves that 'I and it' is the only way to relate to the world.
As you would be aware there is an awful lot written about it, connected as it is to our difficulty in understanding reality itself. Part mystery, but not sure if if philosophers should even mess around with quantum mechanics, as fascinating as I find it. That said, one is sorely tempted, but at the very least it does motivate you to ponder such things and the ultimate form of reality.
At any rate that view( that philosophers should not mess around with quantum mechanics is held by my neighbour, who is a philosopher of some note.
But for me that one side of consciousness as in spirituality) I hold true to be innate. But of course we can receive confirmatory emotive signals of joy or satisfaction, which, if you like, emanates from the wider cosmos. That I think gives us the meaning to our existence and is not dependant on what beliefs we hold to be true. But to do so it must relate or connect to our minds don't you think (self) be it thought waves or as in joyful emotions which can only be experienced.
Best wishes
Hi Lindsay,
DeleteYes, I agree Mike made some valid points and in answer to your question, I've seen proof of his catches on his dinner plate a few times.
The term 'collective consciousness', while probably a good idea, always leaves me feeling a bit uncomfortable in that I've grown rather cozy in my own space. Maybe the 'collective' (a rather radical designation) would insist I tidy the place up. Just a thought.
Anyhow, let me apologize for not clarifying my 'I and it' statement. What I meant was that for a large part of the population nature is considered as an 'it', something that gets in the way of progress that needs to be managed and tamed. The opposite, an 'I and you', indicates a relationship between equals - whether another person or the natural world. Modern industrial civilization is terrified of the I-you relationship, and goes to extremes in its attempts to force all relationships into the I-it mode - including the idea of replacing people with robots.
Consciousness definitely wiggles away from easy understanding. In fact most people take it for granted that it's just a property of life, something produced by evolution to give us some advantage in our search for food and reproductive partners. As do you I believe it's far more than that - innate spirituality also seems to be commonplace among most members of our race. Perhaps that's also true of the species we share the planet with, but we know far too little to begin to contemplate so extreme a concept.
When it comes to quantum theory it seems to me you can't have a subject that philosophers, or anyone else, isn't allowed to think about. We are a naturally inquisitive race and we love to share (and dispute) information of all kinds.
You're right that something, we can't be sure exactly what, gives meaning to our lives. I think there's a next stage where more will be revealed - and perhaps (I hope) more beyond that one.
All the best - always
Hi Susan
DeleteThanks for your clarification and I' m in full agreement. I don't think it's a very radical move to accept the notion the animal kingdom shares many traits we regard as essentially only human. Take for instance altruism as expressed in random acts of kindness and acts of heroism. Ample evidence exists for this in nature,in the rare instances when their is a pause in the pressure of daily survival to observe first hand behaviours we have long thought only belong to the human species. My view however is that spirituality which I hold as being that part of concsciosnes which is innate, is a gift at bitrth Somthing that has evolved over billions of years from the star dust of creation. It is present in all of us , but our emotions or trauma or any of the pressures of existence prevents us realising our authentic self. This gift comes with free will,so that it's relisation is expseeed in those random acts of kindness and in acts of heroism.
As for philosophers talking about quantum mechanics many do. Just my opinion you cannot logically form any conclusions other the notion reality itself at the quantum level, which comprises you and me, remains a mystery.
Best wishes
Hi Lindsay
DeleteI recall you've also been interested in Rupert Sheldrake's theories about morphic resonance and so are well aware of his investigations of the awareness dogs display about their owner's movements. It's fascinating stuff, isn't it? There are so many examples of the mutual altruism shown by animals that make the larger subject of their awareness hard to ignore.
Yes, we are most certainly affected by the traumas of daily life to the extent that only rare individuals have been able to overcome the conditioning. Random acts of kindness are examples of our innate relationship with the divine.
It seems quantum theory has made philosophers of a number of scientists. For instance, Richard Feynman who said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't .... On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
I've always enjoyed a good mystery.
All the best
Reading your post, and taking a quick look at 'The Professor', elicited a slight, excited 'kick-in-the-stomach.' I wish I had known him when he was blogging; I feel a sense of familiarity. Thank you for this, Susan.
ReplyDeleteWhen I thought of introducing 'The Professor' the first person I hoped would be interested was you, Tom. There's still a lot there to be enjoyed on his website and I wish you joy of the discovery.
Delete